Author | Type of study | Conclusion |
Harris EE, et al. 2005 [24] | Retrospective 278 patients | No clinical impact on cosmesis, complication either modality: No comments on CON V SEQ |
Azria D, et al. 2005 [25] | Commentary (retrospective data) | “Concurrent” increases subcutaneous and pulmonary fibrosis |
Azria D, et al. 2004 [26] | Retrospective 147 patients | “Concomitant”-Tamoxifen (Tam) increases sub-cut breast fibrosis in hypersensitive patients |
Whelan T, et al. 2005 [27] | Editorial review | SEQ or CON: yet to be resolved Randomized trial recommended |
Pierce LJ, et al. 2005 [28] | Prospective randomized, 309 pts | No difference in adverse effect, local or systemic recurrence RT + TAM or RT only |
Ismail SS, et al. 2013 [29] | Prospective 160 patients | No difference RT + CON or SEQ |
Bentzen SM, et al. 1996 [30] | Retrospective 84 patients | Increase in lung fibrosis in CON Group |
Ishitobi M, et al. 2009 [31] | Retrospective 264 patients | No difference between CON and SEQ Group |
Tsoutsou PG, et al. 2010 [32] | Review | May be given CON or SEQ (RT) Combination of Tamoxifen and Letrozole recommended |
Ahn PH, et al. 2005 [33] | Retrospective 495 patients | CON did not affect local control No observation on cosmesis and toxicity |
Koc M, et al. 2002 [34] | Prospective 111 patients | RT + TAM V RT + 0: Tele cobalt RT Significant risk of lung fibrosis. No comment on CON V SEQ |
Cecchini MJ, et al. 2015 [35] | Literature review | SEQ supported due to increase in lung fibrosis in CON treatment |
Munshi A, et al. 2011 [36] | Randomized prospective | Results awaited (major study) |